Fuck Yeah, Art History!

saltdragon:

nodamncatnodamncradle:

Can we all take a minute and appreciate that hundreds of years ago a person poured hours of hard work into painting cherubs making human fart bubbles. 

///////////////////////////////////////
So, this image has crossed my dash several times today, and each time I have been increasingly suspicious. At first glance this looks like a baroque painting – the nude, the putti, the ambiguous interior/exterior space are conventional baroque elements – but several aspects are off. First, the light looks artificial, there is no indication of the reds, oranges, or yellows one associates with an oil lamp, a candle, or the sun as one would have in a baroque painting. Second, the figures are rendered with almost photographic clarity, in a linear style out of step with baroque painting (think Rubens). Third, baroque and humor certainly aren’t mutually exclusive terms, but I have never seen scatalogical varieties employed in baroque painting (prints are a whole other game). Finally, the bubble wand strikes me as anachronistic (though I suppose 16th century bubble wands are not impossible).
A reverse image search later, and I find myself here, at the website of Latvian artist Arthur Berzinsh. A brief perusal of his portfolio pages confirms my suspicion that he is indeed some variant on the postmodern pop-surrealist. [TW “artistic portrayals” of rape] Additionally he is a gross misogynist, no doubt moments away from being championed by Hi-Fructose magazine. Also, he is an antisemite (romantic portrayals of Nazis are gross).
Can we all take a minute and consider that today, a man poured hours into painting a sexualized nude woman being groped by children who also happen to be making human fart bubbles in a style meant to look as if it had been created hundreds of years ago and that this reflects something about gendered power relations as produced in the West?
Your Friendly Neighborhood Art Historian,
Saltdragon
[Edit] Can we take a minute and consider that, at this time, nearly 40,000 tumblr users were taken in by this image?
[Edit] I feel silly in learning that this image looks photographic, because, in fact it is a photograph (well, a photomanipulation). Doesn’t change anything though.

Coming out of semi-permanent seclusion to reblog this. That this work has over 60,000 notes, the vast majority of which reflect ignorance, is shameful.

saltdragon:

nodamncatnodamncradle:

Can we all take a minute and appreciate that hundreds of years ago a person poured hours of hard work into painting cherubs making human fart bubbles. 

///////////////////////////////////////

So, this image has crossed my dash several times today, and each time I have been increasingly suspicious. At first glance this looks like a baroque painting – the nude, the putti, the ambiguous interior/exterior space are conventional baroque elements – but several aspects are off. First, the light looks artificial, there is no indication of the reds, oranges, or yellows one associates with an oil lamp, a candle, or the sun as one would have in a baroque painting. Second, the figures are rendered with almost photographic clarity, in a linear style out of step with baroque painting (think Rubens). Third, baroque and humor certainly aren’t mutually exclusive terms, but I have never seen scatalogical varieties employed in baroque painting (prints are a whole other game). Finally, the bubble wand strikes me as anachronistic (though I suppose 16th century bubble wands are not impossible).

A reverse image search later, and I find myself here, at the website of Latvian artist Arthur Berzinsh. A brief perusal of his portfolio pages confirms my suspicion that he is indeed some variant on the postmodern pop-surrealist. [TW “artistic portrayals” of rape] Additionally he is a gross misogynist, no doubt moments away from being championed by Hi-Fructose magazine. Also, he is an antisemite (romantic portrayals of Nazis are gross).

Can we all take a minute and consider that today, a man poured hours into painting a sexualized nude woman being groped by children who also happen to be making human fart bubbles in a style meant to look as if it had been created hundreds of years ago and that this reflects something about gendered power relations as produced in the West?

Your Friendly Neighborhood Art Historian,

Saltdragon

[Edit] Can we take a minute and consider that, at this time, nearly 40,000 tumblr users were taken in by this image?

[Edit] I feel silly in learning that this image looks photographic, because, in fact it is a photograph (well, a photomanipulation). Doesn’t change anything though.

Coming out of semi-permanent seclusion to reblog this. That this work has over 60,000 notes, the vast majority of which reflect ignorance, is shameful.

(Source: uglyrenaissancebabies)

via saltdragon / 12 months ago / 212,802 notes / art, art history, misogyny,
medieval:

BROEDERLAM, MelchiorThe Annunciation (detail), 1393-99Tempera on wood, Musée des Beaux-Arts, Dijon

The Annunciation, or, When God Partied Too Hard And Vomited On His Posse of Tiny Red Angels, Which Was Curiously Left Out Of The Bible

medieval:

BROEDERLAM, Melchior
The Annunciation (detail), 1393-99
Tempera on wood, Musée des Beaux-Arts, Dijon

The Annunciation, or, When God Partied Too Hard And Vomited On His Posse of Tiny Red Angels, Which Was Curiously Left Out Of The Bible

via medieval / 2 years ago / 557 notes / medieval,
aanubis:

vondell-swain:

thelastsamweiss:

vondell-swain:

whoa
i love it

um
anyone else understand what the fuck this is supposed to mean
i just don’t get art sometimes
i really don’t
this is bullshit

it’s an installation piece that tells a familiar, immediately-identifiable story (that of the roughly, carelessly handled package) while simultaneously housing a handful of incredibly interesting ideas. the package was shipped with the full intent of it being handled carelessly, returned and presented as art — completely unbeknownst to the employees, who proceeded to treat it exactly as they would treat a package that did not contain “art”.
that indifference says a lot of things about how absolutely arbitrary the “value” we give to art is, and also poses some interesting questions about when exactly something begins to be classified as art — is it when the piece is planned? is it when the piece is shipped? is it when the piece arrives at the gallery? is it when the show opens?
if you happened across this piece sitting in a warehouse full of glass showcases, it wouldn’t be a piece at all, it would just be an unfortunate error waiting to be thrown away. if you happened across it in a FedEx warehouse, you’d reprimand the employee responsible and toss it. if you happened across it when it was outside the gallery waiting to be brought in, you’d assume the gallery owner would be very annoyed that one of the glass showcases they ordered broke and they’d have to order another one.
in fact, it is the very action of presenting it as a piece of art and opening it up for critical interpretation that defines it as art. that is the action that gives value to these two objects. it allows their story to be told by allowing you to experience it and consider it in an elevated, critical manner that you otherwise would never have done.
it’s a very high-concept piece and so it takes a lot more mental investment in order to understand and appreciate than, say, a pretty painting of a landscape would. but once you do, it’s a very nice treat. I enjoyed it.
(it also happens to be really really pleasing aesthetically, which I’m sure played a large part in the conceptual refinement and physical planning stage after the inception of the original concept. the decision to have the case be cube-shaped and not rectangular was a particularly well-considered decision that adds a lot to the final product.)

BITCHES GOT REPRIMANDED 

BITCHES AIN’T GOT THE SPECIALIZED TYPE OF KNOWLEDGE NECESSARY TO  UNDERSTAND A TYPE OF ART WHICH DOESN’T READILY OFFER ITSELF UP TO  INTERPRETATION OR AESTHETIC ENJOYMENT AND IS, BY AND LARGE, PRODUCED FOR  A WEALTHY ELITE WITH LITTLE OR NO INTEREST IN SHARING HUMANITY’S  CULTURAL OUTPUT WITH HUMANITY AT LARGE

aanubis:

vondell-swain:

thelastsamweiss:

vondell-swain:

whoa

i love it

um

anyone else understand what the fuck this is supposed to mean

i just don’t get art sometimes

i really don’t

this is bullshit

it’s an installation piece that tells a familiar, immediately-identifiable story (that of the roughly, carelessly handled package) while simultaneously housing a handful of incredibly interesting ideas. the package was shipped with the full intent of it being handled carelessly, returned and presented as art — completely unbeknownst to the employees, who proceeded to treat it exactly as they would treat a package that did not contain “art”.

that indifference says a lot of things about how absolutely arbitrary the “value” we give to art is, and also poses some interesting questions about when exactly something begins to be classified as art — is it when the piece is planned? is it when the piece is shipped? is it when the piece arrives at the gallery? is it when the show opens?

if you happened across this piece sitting in a warehouse full of glass showcases, it wouldn’t be a piece at all, it would just be an unfortunate error waiting to be thrown away. if you happened across it in a FedEx warehouse, you’d reprimand the employee responsible and toss it. if you happened across it when it was outside the gallery waiting to be brought in, you’d assume the gallery owner would be very annoyed that one of the glass showcases they ordered broke and they’d have to order another one.

in fact, it is the very action of presenting it as a piece of art and opening it up for critical interpretation that defines it as art. that is the action that gives value to these two objects. it allows their story to be told by allowing you to experience it and consider it in an elevated, critical manner that you otherwise would never have done.

it’s a very high-concept piece and so it takes a lot more mental investment in order to understand and appreciate than, say, a pretty painting of a landscape would. but once you do, it’s a very nice treat. I enjoyed it.

(it also happens to be really really pleasing aesthetically, which I’m sure played a large part in the conceptual refinement and physical planning stage after the inception of the original concept. the decision to have the case be cube-shaped and not rectangular was a particularly well-considered decision that adds a lot to the final product.)

BITCHES GOT REPRIMANDED 

BITCHES AIN’T GOT THE SPECIALIZED TYPE OF KNOWLEDGE NECESSARY TO UNDERSTAND A TYPE OF ART WHICH DOESN’T READILY OFFER ITSELF UP TO INTERPRETATION OR AESTHETIC ENJOYMENT AND IS, BY AND LARGE, PRODUCED FOR A WEALTHY ELITE WITH LITTLE OR NO INTEREST IN SHARING HUMANITY’S CULTURAL OUTPUT WITH HUMANITY AT LARGE

via arthistoryx / 2 years ago / 11,580 notes /
fuckyeahdinoart:

by Charles R. Knight

Happy 2012! Is this the year Fuck Yeah, Art History will rise from the grave like these delightful dinosaurs?!?!?! (maaaaaaybe [hahahahaha])

fuckyeahdinoart:

by Charles R. Knight

Happy 2012! Is this the year Fuck Yeah, Art History will rise from the grave like these delightful dinosaurs?!?!?! (maaaaaaybe [hahahahaha])

Sam: In a world where I owned a burger restaurant, it would be called "The Burgers of Calais".

Q & A

For my AP Euro class, we have to assemble an art folio for different artistic periods, and the first period is the Renaissance. Do you (or your followers) have any good ideas for at least one painting, sculpture and example of architecture that portrays the themes in that time period? I'm trying to steer clear of things like the Mona Lisa, lest every other student and their mother uses that. C: Thank you!

Sorry but we’re not here to do your homework. If you’re smart enough to be in an AP class, you should be smart enough to realize that the library should have books on art history (even specifically Renaissance art history!) with lots and lots of pictures of artworks that would fit the parameters of your assignment. Damn, even Wikipedia has that kind of information. C’mon.

(with apologies to Paolo Uccello)

2 years ago / asked by princessveroni
Sol LeWitt Wall Drawing #304 (via PORT - Portland art   news   reviews)
Sol LeWitt: the original hipster????????

Sol LeWitt Wall Drawing #304 (via PORT - Portland art news reviews)

Sol LeWitt: the original hipster????????

stfuconservatives:

My favorite art history professor from college just posted this and said, “My profile pic this week was chosen to represent Dems vs Republicans in this debt “debate.”” Yay liberal college professors!

Art History: always relevant!

stfuconservatives:

My favorite art history professor from college just posted this and said, “My profile pic this week was chosen to represent Dems vs Republicans in this debt “debate.”” Yay liberal college professors!

Art History: always relevant!

Whitby “Snake Stone”, from Yorkshire, England, 206-104 million year old ammonite fossil with carving of unknown date, photograph © 2003 The Natural History Museum
Sometimes art, folklore, and science come together and make sweet, sloppy love and leave behind the oddest of artifacts as their bastard love-children. What you see above is one of those strange children—an Jurassic ammonite with a snake’s head carved into it.
During the medieval period in certain parts of Europe rich with ammonite fossils of the Dactylioceras genus, stories popped up explaining the coiled, ribbed fossils as snakes that had been turned to stone through supernatural means. Which must have made more sense to the medieval mind than the idea that millions and millions of years ago the land they were currently standing on was under an ocean filled with mollusks whose spiral shells became fossilized all those years ago through chemical processes not yet understood. This belief was particularly strong in the English town of Whitby, where Saint Hilda lived in the 600s after founding a monastery there. Legend has it that she miraculously prayed a plague of snakes into stone, which explained the ammonite fossils found in the area.
Thus began the local tradition of carving snakes’ heads onto the ammonite fossils, either to honor the saint’s miracle, or to sell to the gullible as “genuine relics” of the saint. The belief wasn’t fully dispelled until the natural philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment had to start thinking about the whole thing from a scientific angle and ruined all the fun.

Whitby “Snake Stone”, from Yorkshire, England, 206-104 million year old ammonite fossil with carving of unknown date, photograph © 2003 The Natural History Museum

Sometimes art, folklore, and science come together and make sweet, sloppy love and leave behind the oddest of artifacts as their bastard love-children. What you see above is one of those strange children—an Jurassic ammonite with a snake’s head carved into it.

During the medieval period in certain parts of Europe rich with ammonite fossils of the Dactylioceras genus, stories popped up explaining the coiled, ribbed fossils as snakes that had been turned to stone through supernatural means. Which must have made more sense to the medieval mind than the idea that millions and millions of years ago the land they were currently standing on was under an ocean filled with mollusks whose spiral shells became fossilized all those years ago through chemical processes not yet understood. This belief was particularly strong in the English town of Whitby, where Saint Hilda lived in the 600s after founding a monastery there. Legend has it that she miraculously prayed a plague of snakes into stone, which explained the ammonite fossils found in the area.

Thus began the local tradition of carving snakes’ heads onto the ammonite fossils, either to honor the saint’s miracle, or to sell to the gullible as “genuine relics” of the saint. The belief wasn’t fully dispelled until the natural philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment had to start thinking about the whole thing from a scientific angle and ruined all the fun.

Le Comte Robert de Montesquiou, Giovanni Boldini (Italian), 1897, oil on canvas, 116 x 82.5 cm, Musée d’Orsay
You’re just mad ‘cause I’m styling on you.

Le Comte Robert de Montesquiou, Giovanni Boldini (Italian), 1897, oil on canvas, 116 x 82.5 cm, Musée d’Orsay

You’re just mad ‘cause I’m styling on you.

 
Next »



Page 1 of 43
Theme by maggie. Runs on Tumblr.